On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 01:12:17PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> We could argue that we humans 'are' the consciousness of the universe. But
> it would add nothing to the discussion! :-) A tad too antropomorphic...


> I assume by "the universe" you mean ours. Understanding human
> consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe what
> level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not
> humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'....rocks, fridges
> etc..... I predict 'not much at all'.

I am extremely sceptical of claims of consciousness going down in some
degree to simpler animals, plants, nonliving things. My main
counterargument is the "Why ants are not conscious" argument, which is
in my book, but I haven't published seperately yet.

This is still room for consciousness is some higher order animals -
chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants perhaps.

> I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like
> that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer = that
> of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena
> reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening are
> the machinations of the hardware of the UD.

Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of

> Who'd have thought I'd have to bother with all this stuff.... all I want
> to do is build my chips and get on with AGI! Here I am proving zombies
> can't do science? sheesh!
> cheers,
> Colin

C'est la vie.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to